On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 04:49:11PM +0300, Ants Aasma wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer, wow that's a long thread. For some reason it did
> not consider lifting the INT_MAX tuples/12GB limitation. I'll see if I can
> pick up where that thread left off and push it along.
Hmm. Okay.. Then I have mark
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 17:05, Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> There already was a attempt to make this improvement, see [1]. There was
> a fairly long discussion about how to best do that (using other data
> structure, not just a simple array). It kinda died about a year ago, but
> I suppose there's a lot
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 03:58:11PM +0300, Ants Aasma wrote:
When dealing with a case where a 2TB table had 3 billion dead tuples I
discovered that vacuum currently can't make use of more than 1GB of
maintenance_work_mem - 179M tuples. This caused excessive amounts of index
scanning even though th
When dealing with a case where a 2TB table had 3 billion dead tuples I
discovered that vacuum currently can't make use of more than 1GB of
maintenance_work_mem - 179M tuples. This caused excessive amounts of index
scanning even though there was plenty of memory available.
I didn't see any good rea
